How do health consumer organisations in Australia manage pharmaceutical industry sponsorship? A cross-sectional study

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Lau ◽  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Barbara Mintzes
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Trade Association ◽  
Corporate Sponsorship ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Health Consumer ◽  
Financial Transparency ◽  
Consumer Organisations ◽  
Corporate Funding

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate how health consumer organisations manage their relationships with the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. Methods We identified 230 health consumer organisations that received pharmaceutical industry support from 2013 to 2016 according to reports published by Medicines Australia, the industry trade association. A random sample of 133 organisations was selected and their websites assessed for financial transparency, policies governing corporate sponsorship and evidence of potential industry influence. Results In all, 130 of the 133 organisations evaluated received industry funding. Of these 130, 68 (52.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4–61.1%) disclosed this funding. Nearly all (67; 98.5%) reported the identity of their industry donors, followed by uses (52.9%), amount (13.2%) and proportion of income from industry (4.4%). Less than one-fifth (24/133; 18.0%; 95% CI 11.9–25.6%) had publicly available policies on corporate sponsorship. Six organisations (7.2%; 95% CI 2.7–15.1%) had board members that were currently or previously employed by pharmaceutical companies, and 49 (36.8%; 95% CI 28.6–45.6%) had company logos, web links or advertisements on their websites. Conclusion Industry-funded health consumer organisations in Australia have low transparency when reporting industry funding and few have policies governing corporate sponsorship. Relationships between health consumer organisations and the industry require effective actions to minimise the risks of undue influence. What is known about this topic? Pharmaceutical industry funding of health consumer organisations is common in the US and Europe, yet only a minority of such organisations publicly disclose this funding and have policies regulating their relationships with industry. What does this paper add? Industry-funded health consumer organisations in Australia have inadequate financial transparency and rarely have policies addressing corporate funding. Organisations that have received more industry funding are more likely to report it publicly. What are the implications for practitioners? Robust policies addressing corporate sponsorship and increased transparency are needed to maintain the independence of health consumer organisations. Governments may also consider regulating non-profit organisations to ensure public reporting of funding sources.

scholarly journals Pharmaceutical Industry Funding of Health Consumer Groups in Australia: A Cross-sectional Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Swestika Swandari ◽  
Edith Lau ◽  
Agnes Vitry ◽  
Barbara Mintzes
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Eye Health ◽  
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers ◽  
Health Consumer ◽  
Consumer Organizations ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Relationships between consumer organizations and pharmaceutical manufacturers are the focus of transparency efforts in some jurisdictions, including Australia. This study describes the frequency and nature of industry sponsorship of Australian health consumer organizations and examines the link between sponsorship of the most highly funded organizations and manufacturers’ requests for public reimbursement of products for related health conditions. We downloaded 130 transparency reports covering the period January 2013 to December 2016 from the website of Medicines Australia and carried out a descriptive analysis. For the most heavily funded organizations and their sponsors, we examined Public Summary Documents of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to identify relevant products under consideration for public reimbursement over the study period. Thirty-four pharmaceutical companies provided 1,482 sponsorships to 230 organizations, spending a total of AU$34,507,810. The top clinical areas in terms of amount of funding received were cancer, eye health, and nervous system disorders. The sponsors of the most highly funded groups were companies that in most cases had drugs under review for public reimbursement for conditions covered by these organizations. Interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and consumer organizations are common and require careful management to prevent biases that may favor sponsors’ interests above those of patients and the public.

scholarly journals Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. l6925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Lisa Parker ◽  
Cinzia Colombo ◽  
Paola Mosconi ◽  
Giussy Barbara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Corporate Sponsorship ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Corporate Funding

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesOvid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesObservational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type.Review methodsReviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.Results26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency’s disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors’ interests.ConclusionIn general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017079265.

scholarly journals ‘Lines in the sand’: an Australian qualitative study of patient group practices to promote independence from pharmaceutical industry funders

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e045140
Author(s):  
Lisa Parker ◽  
Quinn Grundy ◽  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Barbara Mintzes ◽  
Lisa Bero
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Patient Group ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Group Practices ◽  
Ability To Act ◽  
Brand Marketing ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Participant Role

ObjectivesTo study how patient groups that accept pharmaceutical industry money perceive and manage the risk of undue influence from their sponsors.DesignEmpirical ethics approach using a qualitative interview study.SettingThe Australian patient group sector.Participants27 participants from 23 patient groups, purposively recruited for diversity of group characteristics (degree of pharmaceutical industry funding, health focus, location) and participant role (staff, board members).AnalysisInterview data were transcribed and read repeatedly to identify concepts and patterns in the data. These were grouped into conceptual categories that described and explained the findings. We used an inductive analytical approach to identify important themes and concepts in the data.ResultsParticipants in this study described how the patient group sector receives pressure from pharmaceutical company funders to act in ways that prioritise company interests. Groups worked to try and protect their credibility and ability to act in ways of their own choosing using practical rules or ‘lines in the sand’ about industry funding activities. They were grouped around the dominant topics of: sponsor exclusivity, brand marketing, agenda setting, advocacy and content of group activities. Lines in the sand were largely experience-driven and ethically informed; they varied between groups. There was also variable transparency among groups about financial interactions with pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionsIt is important to know about patient group practices around pharmaceutical industry funders as this allows public scrutiny about the adequacy of such practices. Inadequate strategies may mean that funders can influence patient groups activities in ways that do not necessarily prioritise the interests of members. We found that groups differed in their approach, with little independent external guidance to inform responses to commonly encountered types of influence. Inadequate transparency limits the ability of the public to make informed assessments about the risk of bias over the activities of groups that accept industry funding.

scholarly journals Pharmaceutical industry funding of events for healthcare professionals on non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in Australia: an observational study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030253
Author(s):  
Behrad Behdarvand ◽  
Emily A Karanges ◽  
Lisa Bero
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Independent Information ◽  
Substantial Investment ◽  
Nature Frequency

ObjectivesTo describe the nature, frequency and content of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-related events for healthcare professionals sponsored by the manufacturers of the NOACs in Australia. A secondary objective is to compare these data to the rate of dispensing of the NOACs in Australia.Design and settingThis cross-sectional study examined consolidated data from publicly available Australian pharmaceutical industry transparency reports from October 2011 to September 2015 on NOAC-related educational events. Data from April 2011 to June 2016 on NOAC dispensing, subsidised under Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), were obtained from the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services.Main outcome measuresCharacteristics of NOAC-related educational events including costs (in Australian dollars, $A), numbers of events, information on healthcare professional attendees and content of events; and NOAC dispensing rates.ResultsDuring the study period, there were 2797 NOAC-related events, costing manufacturers a total of $A10 578 745. Total expenditure for meals and beverages at all events was $A4 238 962. Events were predominantly attended by general practitioners (42%, 1174/2797), cardiologists (35%, 977/2797) and haematologists (23%, 635/2797). About 48% (1347/2797) of events were held in non-clinical settings, mainly restaurants, bars and cafes. Around 55% (1551/2797) of events consisted of either conferences, meetings or seminars. The analysis of the content presented at two events detected promotion of NOACs for unapproved indications, an emphasis on a favourable benefit/harm profile, and that all speakers had close ties with the manufacturers of the NOACs. Following PBS listings relevant to each NOAC, the numbers of events related to that NOAC and the prescribing of that NOAC increased.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the substantial investment in NOAC-related events made by four pharmaceutical companies had a promotional purpose. Healthcare professionals should seek independent information on newly subsidised medicines from, for example, government agencies or drug bulletins.

scholarly journals Association Between Conflicts of Interest and Authors’ Positions on Harms of Varenicline: a Cross-Sectional Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard ◽  
Quinn Grundy ◽  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Adam G. Dunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Drug Safety ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Media Attention ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Abstract Background Few studies have investigated the relationship between industry funding/conflicts of interest and authors’ positions in opinion pieces on drug safety. Harmful effects of varenicline, a treatment for smoking cessation, have been highly contested. Objective To examine the association between pharmaceutical industry funding/authors’ financial conflicts of interest and position on varenicline in opinion articles, especially in relation to the minimization of harms; to assess whether opinion pieces on drug safety issues written by authors with conflicts of interest are more frequently cited in the news or social media. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Participants English language opinion pieces and narrative reviews about varenicline published between May 2006 and February 2019. Main Measures Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals; the Mann-Whitney two-sample statistic was used to test for differences in Altmetric scores, a measure of media attention. Key Results Of the 221 included articles, 30.3% (67) disclosed the funding source and 62.9% (139) disclosed authors’ conflicts of interest. Authors of opinion pieces on varenicline who reported financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry (as a conflict of interest or funding source) were more likely to minimise the cardiovascular and psychiatric risk of varenicline compared to those without conflicts of interest or industry funding (OR: 4.00; 95% CI: 1.32 to 12.16 for cardiovascular risk; OR: 8.51; 95% CI: 3.79 to 19.11 for psychiatric risk). These associations persisted in sensitivity analyses. No statistically significant difference in Altmetric score was found between articles with (mean 15.83, median 3) and without (mean 11.90, median 1) conflicts of interest, indicating similar media attention (p-value=0.11). Conclusions We found that authors with financial ties to drug companies were more likely to publish opinion pieces that minimised harms of varenicline. These results raise questions about journals’ editorial policies to accept reviews of treatments from authors with financial relationships with manufacturers.

scholarly journals “Asset exchange”—interactions between patient groups and pharmaceutical industry: Australian qualitative study

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l6694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Parker ◽  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Quinn Grundy ◽  
Barbara Mintzes ◽  
Lisa Bero
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Patient Group ◽  
General Health ◽  
Exchange Interactions ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Industry Sponsorship ◽  
Health Consumer ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Patient Groups

AbstractObjectiveTo understand and report on the nature of patient group interactions with the pharmaceutical industry from the perspective of patient group representatives by exploring the range of attitudes towards pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and how, why, and when interactions occur.DesignEmpirical qualitative interview study informed by ethics theory.SettingAustralian patient groups.Participants27 participants from 23 Australian patient groups that represented diverse levels of financial engagement with the pharmaceutical industry. Groups were focused on general health consumer issues or disease specific topics, and had regional or national jurisdictions.AnalysisAnalytic techniques were informed by grounded theory. Interview transcripts were coded into data driven categories. Findings were organised into new conceptual categories to describe and explain the data, and were supported by quotes.ResultsA range of attitudes towards pharmaceutical industry sponsorship were identified that are presented as four different types of relationship between patient groups and the pharmaceutical industry. The dominant relationship type was of a successful business partnership, and participants described close working relationships with industry personnel. These participants acknowledged a potential for adverse industry influence, but expressed confidence in existing strategies for avoiding industry influence. Other participants described unsatisfactory or undeveloped relationships, and some participants (all from general health consumer groups) presented their groups’ missions as incompatible with the pharmaceutical industry because of fundamentally opposing interests. Participants reported that interactions between their patient group and pharmaceutical companies were more common when companies had new drugs of potential interest to group members. Patient groups that accepted industry funding engaged in exchanges of “assets” with companies. Groups received money, information, and advice in exchange for providing companies with marketing, relationship building opportunities with key opinion leaders, coordinated lobbying with companies about drug access and subsidy, assisting companies with clinical trial recruitment, and enhancing company credibility.ConclusionsAn understanding of the range of views patient groups have about pharmaceutical company sponsorship will be useful for groups that seek to identify and manage any ethical concerns about these relationships. Patient groups that receive pharmaceutical industry money should anticipate they might be asked for specific assets in return. Selective industry funding of groups where active product marketing opportunities exist might skew the patient group sector’s activity towards pharmaceutical industry interests and allow industry to exert proxy influence over advocacy and subsequent health policy.

scholarly journals Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Fabbri ◽  
L Parker ◽  
C Colombo ◽  
P Mosconi ◽  
G Barbara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Policy Impact ◽  
Corporate Sponsorship ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Funding Information

Abstract Background Patient groups play an important role in health care and policy. Concerns have been raised about the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, because of potential threats to the groups' independence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise studies that explored pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (from inception to January 2018). We included observational studies reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups which disclosed information about this funding; association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. We carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessed study quality. Results 26 cross-sectional studies were included. Fifteen studies assessed the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). The proportion of patient groups which disclosed funding information on their websites was low (27% [95% CI: 24%-31%]). Few patient groups had formal policies governing corporate sponsorship (range from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274)). Among the few studies examining funding status versus organisational position, industry sponsored groups tend to hold positions consistent with sponsors' interests. Conclusions We found widespread indications of industry funding of patient groups. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Research on policy impact is still limited. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented. Key messages Industry funding of patient groups is common in high income countries. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health care and policy, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document